Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T14:25:45.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Durational correlates of English sublexical constituent structure*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2009

Mariko Sugahara  and
Alice Turk
Mariko Sugahara
Affiliation:
Doshisha University
Alice Turk
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates whether differences (a) in word-internal morphological structure and (b) in lexical stress patterns are reflected in prosodic constituent structure, by examining duration measurements in Scottish English. In Experiments 1 and 2, at a slow speech rate, stem-final rhymes followed by Level II suffixes were on average 4–6% longer than corresponding strings in monomorphemic words, and 7–8% longer than stem-final rhymes followed by Level I suffixes. These results are consistent with the view that stems preceding Level II suffixes are mapped onto prosodic words in the prosodic representation. Experiment 3 obtained no reliable durational differences, even at a slow speech rate, between the initial syllable rhymes of SS words and SW words, which does not provide evidence for the hypothesis that these different stress patterns are represented as differences in foot structure.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , December 2009 , pp. 477 - 524
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aronoff, Mark & Sridhar, S. N. (1983). Morphological levels in English and Kannada or atarizing Reagan. In Richardson, John F., Marks, Mitchell & Chukerman, Amy (eds.) Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 3–16.Google Scholar
Aylett, Matthew & Turk, Alice (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: a functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47. 31–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard & van Rijn, Hedderik (1993). The CELEX lexical data base. [CD-ROM.] Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Edwards, Jan (1990). Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 152–178.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle L., Brenier, Jason M., Jurafsky, Daniel, Ikeno, Ayako & Girand, Cynthia (2002). Which predictability measures affect content word durations? In Proceedings of Pronunciation Modeling and Lexicon Adaptation for Spoken Language Technology (PMLA). 1–5.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura (1997). Affix classes are defined by faithfulness. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5. 1–26.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (1999). Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in English and Germanic. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester & University of Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni (1993). On the Word level. In Hargus, Sharon & Kaisse, Ellen M. (eds.) Studies in Lexical Phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 199–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cambier-Langeveld, Tina (2000). Temporal making of accents and boundaries. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Campbell, N. W. & Isard, S. D. (1991). Segment durations in a syllable frame. JPh 19. 34–47.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew Y. (1990). What must phonology know about syntax? In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.) The phonology–syntax connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 19–46.Google Scholar
Cho, Taehong (2001). Effects of morpheme boundaries on intergestural timing: evidence from Korean. Phonetica 58. 129–162.Google Scholar
Cho, Taehong & Keating, Patricia A. (2001). Articulatory and acoustic studies on domain-initial strengthening in Korean. JPh 29. 155–190.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Christie, W. M. (1977). Some multiple cues for juncture in English. General Linguistics 17. 212–222.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail & McCarthy, John J. (1994). Alignment and parallelism in Indonesian phonology. Ms, Cornell University & University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cooper, William E. & Paccia-Cooper, Jeanne (1980). Syntax and speech. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne & Butterfield, Sally (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: evidence from juncture misperception. Journal of Memory and Language 31. 218–236.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine (1996). The prosodic structure of early words. In Morgan, James L. & Demuth, Katherine (eds.) Signal to syntax: bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 171–184.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda (1993). Creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review 100. 233–253.Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile & Keating, Patricia A. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. JASA 101. 3728–3740.Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. (1981). A relationship between coarticulation and compensatory shortening. Phonetica 38. 35–50.Google Scholar
Gerken, LouAnn (1994a). Young children's representation of prosodic structure: evidence from English-speakers' weak syllable productions. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 19–38.Google Scholar
Gerken, LouAnn (1994b). A metrical template account of children's weak syllable omissions from multisyllabic words. Journal of Child Language 21. 565–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, T. Alan (2001). The distribution of superheavy syllables in Modern English. Folia Linguistica 35. 399–442.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Mohanan, K. P. (1985). Segmental phonology of Modern English. LI 16. 57–116.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1999). The phonology of English: a prosodic optimality-theoretic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1980). A metrical theory of stress rules. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1985, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1989). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Kiparsky, Paul & Youmans, Gilbert (eds.) Rhythm and meter. San Diego: Academic Press. 201–260.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huggins, A. W. F. (1975). On isochrony and syntax. In Fant, G. & Tatham, M. A. A. (eds.) Auditory analysis and perception of speech. London: Academic Press. 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der & Smith, Norval S. H. (eds.) (1982). The structure of phonological representations. 2 parts. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1990). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1994). Reflections on CodaCond and Alignment. In Merchant, Jason, Padgett, Jaye & Walker, Rachel (eds.) Phonology at Santa Cruz 3. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center. 27–46.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1980, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). From cyclic to lexical phonology. In Hulst, van der & Smith, (1982: Part 1). 131–175.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2008). Fenno-Swedish quantity: contrast in Stratal OT. In Vaux, Bert & Nevins, Andrew (eds.) Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 185–219.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1986). Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3. 311–340.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse (1960). An acoustic-phonetic study of internal open juncture. Phonetica 5. Suppl. 5–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse (1972). The timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. JASA 51. 2018–2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LI 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1982). Prosodic structure and expletive infixation. Lg 58. 574–590.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993a). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993b). Prosodic morphology I: constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms, University of Massachusetts & Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Marshall, Jonathan (2004). Language change and sociolinguistics: rethinking social networks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin (1994). The quantitative trochee in Latin. NLLT 12. 1–61.Google Scholar
Munson, Benjamin (2001). Phonological pattern frequency and speech production in adults and children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44. 778–792.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Pluymaekers, Mark, Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, R. Harald (2005). Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. JASA 118. 2561–2569.Google Scholar
Price, P. J., Ostendorf, M., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. JASA 90. 2956–2970.Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, Renate (2005). Paradigm uniformity effects versus boundary effects. In Downing, Laura J., Hall, T. Alan & Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.) Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 211–262.Google Scholar
Rakerd, Brad, Sennett, William & Fowler, Carol A. (1987). Domain-final lengthening and foot-level shortening in spoken English. Phonetica 44. 147–155.Google Scholar
Redford, Melissa A. & Randall, Patrick (2005). The role of juncture cues and phonological knowledge in English syllabification judgments. JPh 33. 27–46.Google Scholar
Schwarzlose, Rebecca & Bradlow, Ann R. (2001). What happens to segment durations at the end of a word? JASA 109. 2292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scobbie, James M., Hewlett, Nigel & Turk, Alice (1999). Standard English in Edinburgh and Glasgow: the Scottish vowel length rule revealed. In Foulkes, Paul & Docherty, Gerard J. (eds.) Urban voices: accent studies in the British Isles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 230–245.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James M., Gordeeva, Olga B. & Matthews, Ben (2006). Acquisition of Scottish English phonology: an overview. QMUC Speech Science Research Centre Working Paper WP-7. Edinburgh: Queen Margaret University College.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1980a). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI 11. 563–605.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1980b). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Aronoff, Mark & Kean, Mary-Louise (eds.) Juncture. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 107–129.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1981). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Fretheim, Thorstein (ed.) Nordic Prosody II. Trondheim: Tapir. 111–140.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1982a). The syntax of words. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1982b). The syllable. In Hulst, van der & Smith, (1982: part 2). 337–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 439–469.Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy (1974). Topics in English morphology. PhD thesis, MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer (2002). Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard (1993). Looking into words. In Hargus, Sharon & Kaisse, Ellen M. (eds.) Studies in lexical phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 173–195.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard & Fujimura, Osamu (1993). Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. JPh 21. 291–311.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics–phonology boundary. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 313–334.Google Scholar
Sugahara, Mariko & Turk, Alice (2004). Phonetic reflexes of morphological boundaries at a normal speech rate. In Bernard, Bel & Isabelle, Marlien (eds.) Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004. 353–356.Google Scholar
Szpyra, Jolanta (1989). The phonology–morphology interface: cycles, levels and words. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca & Cassar, Marie (1997). Can children and adults focus on sound as opposed spelling in a phoneme counting task? Developmental Psychology 33. 771–780.Google Scholar
Turk, Alice (1993). Effects of position-in-syllable and stress on consonant articulation. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Turk, Alice (1994). Articulatory phonetic clues to syllable affiliation: gestural characteristics of bilabial stops. In Keating, Patricia A. (ed.) Phonological structure and phonetic form: papers in laboratory phonology III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turk, Alice, Nakai, Satsuko & Sugahara, Mariko (2006). Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: a practical guide. In Sudhoff, Stefan, Lenertová, Denisa, Meyer, Roland, Pappert, Sandra, Augurzky, Petra, Mleinek, Ina, Richter, Nicole & Schließer, Johannes (eds.) Methods in empirical prosody research. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 1–28.Google Scholar
Turk, Alice & Sawusch, James R. (1997). The domain of accentual lengthening in American English. JPh 25. 25–41.Google Scholar
Turk, Alice & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie (2000). Word-boundary-related duration patterns in English. JPh 28. 397–440.Google Scholar
Turk, Alice & White, Laurence (1999). Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. JPh 27. 171–206.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, Diana, Kreiman, Jody & Bolinger, Dwight (1988). Anticipatory lengthening. JPh 16. 339–347.Google Scholar
Waals, Juliette (1999). An experimental view of the Dutch syllable. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Walsh, Thomas & Parker, Frank (1983). The duration of morphemic and non-morphemic /s/ in English. JPh 11. 201–206.Google Scholar
Warner, Natasha, Jongman, Allard, Sereno, Joan & Kemps, Rachèl (2004). Incomplete neutralization and other sub-phonemic durational differences in production and perception: evidence from Dutch. JPh 32. 251–276.Google Scholar
White, Laurence (2002). English speech timing: a domain and locus approach. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Wightman, Colin W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, Ostendorf, Mari & Price, Patti J. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. JASA 91. 1707–1717.Google Scholar
Wijnen, Frank, Krikhaar, Evelien & den Os, Els (1994). The (non)realization of unstressed elements in children's utterances: evidence for a rhythmic constraint. Journal of Child Language 21. 59–83.Google Scholar